Talk:November 2018 Gaza–Israel clashes

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2018

Change "slained" to slain. WoofersSCW (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Article title

Let's discuss it here. I have no preference whatsoever but frequent page moves back and forth becomes distracting. ImTheIP (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

It hasn't been moving back, just forward. At present it is Gaza-Israel (in line with other Gaza/Israel events) - and whether clashes/confrontations (whatever it ends up at) is correct - will probably evolve. Initially - the article was just on the covert op and firefight after it, and now we're covering a 2+ day battle/exchange of fire.Icewhiz (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

new photo from today

• 
  AH-64A (Israeli Air Force)

  מינוזיג (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Nice image. Perhaps someone can crop it to center the heli and missile? ImTheIP (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The Casualty number inconsistence

Hi there, Shalom:

I am the the Wikipedian who translated this article to the Chinese Wikipedia. Currently, the article says that in the initial clash in Khan Yunis, 7 Palestinians were killed. And according to the "Subsequent exchanges of fire" section, 3 Palestinians were killed on 11/12, and another 3 on 11/13. So it seems that in total, the number of Casualties on the Palestinian side is 13. However, in the infobox (and the source cited), the number is 11. It would be great if someone could fix this inconsistence. Thank you very much! --Wikimycota（talk） 05:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The casualty number on the Palestinian side is reportedly 15, but it is hard to get the numbers to add up due to inconsistencies in the reporting.ImTheIP (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Large deletion of content

@Icewhiz:, I see that you have deleted large swathes of content from the page citing the "UNDUE" policy. My question is why? Citing the lead of the policy, it says "Neutral Point of View says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." I do not think the content, primarily authored by me, violated that policy. If you think that some viewpoint is not fairly represented why not add that viewpoint to the article? The article is only 30kb long, tiny by Wikipedia standards, so there is ample room to add much more information to it. ImTheIP (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I mainly removed, with this rationale, rather random bits of criticism of the media policy of the IDF - if we were to get into criticism of of the operational (or media) policies of the various groups involved - there would be no end to the length of the article. What really needs expansion is the actual events and fallout. Icewhiz (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

By all means, add that?! As said, the article is only 30kb so there is no lack of space. In Israel, it is very rare for soldiers to be KIA so when it happens the fallout is noteworthy. In this case, the "dinosaur-like" handling of the military censor brought on ire as the IDF neither published details about the operation nor allowed the media to identify the slain soldier for several days. I think it is interesting and relevant that the media can't publish his name. Imo, it is not UNDUE. ImTheIP (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Size is not an excuse for crud - e.g. someone should take a very large axe to the reactions section (containing mostly predictable reactions from every whichever).Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, you removed the content by citing violations to the UNDUE policy. Now it appears that you do not think the content violates UNDUE, but you still want it kept out of the article? Perhaps you can understand how that change of heart would frustrate an editor?!

I had to look up crud in the dictionary; it means either dirtiness or nonsense. Since the text isn't dirty I assume you mean it is nonsense. I disagree and think that the condemnations are well-sourced, factual and relevant. No one has added the "npov" tag yet which I take as a good sign and hope that the article can reach featured article status in the future.

I would caution against "taking a very large axe" to the article because I'm sure that could run afoul of one WP:POLICY or another (I'm not an expert). It's certainly a rude way of editing. Why not help me by adding more relevant information to the article instead? ImTheIP (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I was speaking figuratively. Reaction sections in most geopolitical articles are generally trimmed down or cut entirely - they tend to accumulate bloated content that has no lasting significance and is undue. Unless the reaction is by a very significant player or has some significance beyond hot air - they generally are editted out.Icewhiz (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I took your "very large axe" to mean that you wanted some editor to delete large swathes of content against the explicit wishes of another editor (me). The section you removed were about the Israeli media criticism of the IDFs media handling and you have not yet explained why you felt that section was "crud" or UNDUE. If you have any specific grievances then air them so that we can address them or edit the article yourself. But when you do it by deleting whole sections, what can I do other than become anoyed?

There is a policy on Wikipedia that says "don't tear down the house as it is being built." This article is being built and there is much work to do still. Perhaps you can come back in a few weeks time when the dust has settled and then we can discuss what content belong? ImTheIP (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• I believe this is the edit being discussed [1]. Blanking the entire section does seem a bit much. Complaints about IDF censorship of the media don't seem to be justified under WP:UNDUE...Icewhiz, did you read the content before removing it as UNDUE? Why would we blanket remove widespread complaints about IDF censorship of the media? Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  These are 3 random critiques of IDF's media policy. We could also possibly find other opinions (positive and negative) on the IDF, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other relevant parties. Such opinions are tangential to the events themselves.Icewhiz (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Not really, three journalists have complained about media censorship, usually the consensus is to include content like this. Random positive/negative opinions about Hamas or the IDF are usually excluded, but I think we'd be hard pressed to find similarly "positive" opinions of media censorship.Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Name of the deceased

In one of the Jerusalem Post articles, the soldier is identified as a 41 year old Druze father of two. A blurred picture of him has even been tweeted by an Israeli MK. He also has a Facebook page so it is trivial to verify that the name provided is correct. In addition to the blog post, he has also been identified here [2]. I haven't sifted through the policy you cite in detail, but isn't it reasonable to publish his name given the "overwhelming evidence?" It's not like Wikipedia is bound by the will of the Israeli military censor.

Should we act similarly regarding the names of the deceased Palestinians? I suggest not, because the names makes it easier to keep track of what happened and when.ImTheIP (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The issue is WP:RS - and particularly WP:BLPSPS since the deceased is still a very recent WP:BDP. If there is a reasonable source (e.g. BBC, Reuters, whatever) - posting a name - it would be possible to include (though possibly UNDUE/NOTMEMORIAL - we do avoid names in many articles). However - without a RS - it is a WP:V and WP:BLP fail. Icewhiz (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Would this do? The Arabic article refers to information gathered from Israeli social media. It also mentions Sayeret Maglan. ImTheIP (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Again you delete whole sections without discussing. If you didn't think the reference was satisfactory, why didn't you respond when I asked you!? I have also asked about this on the noticeboard [3] and since no one responded I concluded that no BLP violation had occurred. Fwiw, it is trivial to find the soldiers Facebook profile, confirming the ethnicity (Druze), age (41) and number of children (2 daughters), thus making it insanely unlikely that the written name is incorrect. ImTheIP (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I missed it. The Arabic source is attributed to social media, and social media is not a reliable source for BLP information. The Tikun Olam and Islam21c refs are patently unreliable - and shouldn't be included. If you seek to enter WP:BDP/WP:BLP information please comply with WP:BLPSOURCES. I'll note this content probably fails WP:DUE - as it seems quite hard to find sources reporting on this, as well as WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Per WP:BLPREMOVE poorly sources information on BLPs (or BDPs here) is to be removed immediately. Icewhiz (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Israeli injury figure

The Israeli injury figure includes those treated for shock, panic and other non-physical wounds. But "injury" is only for physical trauma so the figure is not correct. Any ideas on how to handle the inconsistency? Because it is an apples to oranges comparison. ImTheIP (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Still an injury. We generally stick to what the sources say - e.g. for Palestinian injuries we often include tear gas inhalation injuries - mainly since these are parroted by the sources.Icewhiz (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia itself defines injury as physical trauma. I believe tear gas inhalation causes physical trauma so that is why it is included. The word "wounded" is inappropriate too because it also describes physical traumas. At the very least, we need a footnote I think. Perhaps you know of a policy for what to list in a "Casualties and losses" section? ImTheIP (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no policy on this that I am aware of - in fact, the project as far as I am aware is wildly inconsistent in this regard. Manchester Arena bombing currently cites 800+ injuries - the vast majority of which are psychological/emotional and the revised 800+ figure (as opposed to the initial figure) even includes psych casualties which weren't taken to hospital. The Israeli figure above is at least consistent in that these are hospital treated patients. In general it seems to me that we stick to what sources report per each incident - and it really varies quite a bit per locale (e.g. severity scale of injuries as well as the way injuries are counted). Icewhiz (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

While there might not be any policy, the point of Wikipedia is to enlighten and not confuse. 108 injuries from 460 Hamas rockets is just not plausible. In this case the Times of Israel figure is also over twice as big as any other media source has reported. The Guardian reported about 20 wounded and Haaretz 53 with the breakdown the one given in the sidebar. ImTheIP (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Also - while my personal opinion is that psychological injuries are not injuries -- WP:RSes (and Wikipedia is not one) differ - e.g. per the BBC "More than 800 people are now known to have suffered physical and psychological injuries after the Manchester bombing, police have said." (bold mine). I'm giving Manchester as an example as it was really the extreme spectrum here (including not just hospitalized immediately afterwards (e.g. the 112 hospitalized there included a fair share of psych injuries), but people police tallied (increasing over time - e.g. the BBC source with the 800 is a year after the event!) from other sources over time). Note we have such inconsistencies on fatalities elsewhere - e.g. Hurricane Maria (64 killed during the event, but there are estimates (currently used by us) of indirect death based on excess mortality (e.g. due to lack of electricity, poorer health services, etc.) following the event). Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You need to stick to the latest source, and also make sure that the source isn't reporting just 1 day but the whole event (otherwise we need to tally). If you want to footnote or breakdown psychological vs. physical you can do that.Icewhiz (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The media's figures are all over the place. killing one man and injuring close to 100 others, at least 108 people wounded, One civilian killed by Gaza rockets, Some 70 said injured (but then 53 cited from MGA), killing one person, injuring dozens, wounding 27 people, including three severely, killing one and wounding at least 20 others, Twenty Israelis have been wounded in the latest bloodshed ImTheIP (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The Israeli soldier

Al-andalusi, can you please clarify why you think the section violated the UNDUE policy? Afaik, the UNDUE policy is for situations in which multiple viewpoints are involved but that is not the case here. The media coverage around the soldier is extensive (eg he might be granted a medal posthumously https://www.jns.org/idf-officer-who-died-in-gaza-may-receive-armys-top-medal/) so details surrounding him are notable. Sadly, Palestinians killed by Israeli soldiers are routine. But Israeli soldiers killed by Palestinians only happens once every for years. Therefore the latter garners much more media coverage than the former. ImTheIP (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Khashoggi connection

I think that part is speculative and should be removed unless we can find more substantial reporting. ImTheIP (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Demarcating the topic of the article

While the fragile cease-fire between Hamas and Israel is in effect, the violence apparently continues. https://www.timesofisrael.com/hundreds-riot-along-gaza-border-idf-responds-with-tear-gas-live-fire/ Given the broad scope of the article title, this content should be included in it. But perhaps it is better to limit the article to only the covert op and the related clashes as todays clashes seem unrelated? If so, what would be an apt title for the article? ImTheIP (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I think a post-ceasefire section is the best we can do for now without knowing what the longterm effect of the ceasefire will be. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Alright. I'll add the info under date headings. We can always move the paragraphs to the generic List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2018 in the unlikely event that the cease-fire holds. ImTheIP (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Too soon to definitely call, but assuming there is no real flareup (the "regular" riots occcuring also prior to this confrontation) - I would end this with the ceasefire and political ramifications (e.g. the Defense minister resigning, Israel/Hamas relations, etc.), and possibly include one protest cycle post conflict. If the conflict goes "hot" again in the next two weeks - well - it will be a different story.Icewhiz (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Photos

Hamas has published photos of the "wanted" Israeli operatives and their vehicles used.[4] They are easy to find on the internet, but controversial since they are censored in Israel, which of course makes them extra notable. Should we use them to illustrate the article? ImTheIP (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Enforcing or bypassing censorship (in this case - not precise) of a particular country is not a concern for English Wikipedia (with the exception of the US, maybe) - this has no bearing either way (doesn't prevent us from displaying, but it also doesn't make it "extra notable"). The underlying Wikipedia concern would be WP:BLP, as Hamas - a patently unreliable source (both when used directly, and when it is parroted by others) - is making claims regarding the photographs of (alleged) BLPs. Including the photo in our article would be a serious BLP concern. Icewhiz (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

What part of the policy do you think would be violated? The only related part of WP:MUG I can find is "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light" but that clause is inapplicable becuase the images are not "used out of context." And if I understand you right, you do not object to the inclusion of the photo of the Mercedes truck and Volkswagen van? ImTheIP (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Inanimate or moving objects are generally not BLP concerns if they do not identify BLPs. Beyond the general WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLPPRIVACY for WP:NPFs (and sure - WP:MUG as well, but the issue here is deeper) - the photographs would be identifying information of non-public BLPs from a dubious source as such we have issues equivalent to WP:BLPNAME as well as WP:BLPSOURCES. The may also be copyright/consent issues in regards to some of the photos (even when re-released via Hamas who is not rights holder) - but that's secondary as well. Icewhiz (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

But which part of the policy do you claim would be violated? ImTheIP (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPSOURCES. Reporting on this attributes this back to the Hamas presser/press-release, which is not a RS.Icewhiz (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPRS: "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". The source says (essentially): "the people in these photos participated in an IDF operation", this is a contentious statement from a very unreliable source. “WarKosign” 15:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The source isn't Hamas. Even if it were, I'd argue that Hamas statements aren't any more or less unreliable from similar statements provided by the IDF Spokesperson's Unit. The source is Al Jazeera and other news networks who has published these photos that Hamas alleges depict members of the Israeli special forces unit. ImTheIP (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

AJ is attributing this back to Hamas, and claiming this is "alleged" in the caption. I will also note the WP:BLPCRIME issues in regards to the identified individuals, who have not been convicted. Icewhiz (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

If IDF had published photos of alleged Hamas members, we should treat them the same. “WarKosign” 18:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, which part of these policies would be violated? ImTheIP (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

TODO

Random todo list of stuff that should be improved (Note: my plan is to update this todo-list)

• Did the operatives travel in a Volkswagen car or team?
• Under what circumstances was Nour Baraka assassinated killed? Sources say it either happened at a checkpoint or that he spotted the car outside his window, implying that it didn't.
• Probably should describe Nour Baraka since he appears to have been a target somehow. His brother is quite famous.
• Need more photos and other media.
• Should the Israeli forces be called operatives, agents, soldiers or something else? Since they were not uniformed I guess soldier is the wrong word.

ImTheIP (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Per non-Hamas sources, Nour Baraka wasn't assassinated nor was this a planned killing. Baraka and his men exposed the covert team, and died in an unplanned firefight. Icewhiz (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Is military censorship transient details?

How on earth can it be a "transient trivial detail" that every single article the Israeli media writes about this event has to be pre-approved by a military censor?! ImTheIP (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Is this widely reported? Is this non-routine? Furthermore, will this be the case in 2 years time? The text we put up is supposed to be framed in a manner that is readable in the future - we can't add "At the time of writing". You can source from TOI that what they were saying was correct specifically when they wrote it - but you need to spell that out in the text. Icewhiz (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is widely reported. For example in the reporting about the Hadashot broadcast it is mentioned that it had to be approved first. Yes, it is non-routine because usually the military censor isn't this restrictive. Censoring every article is a lot of work. Most Western countries doesn't even have a military censor. We can formulate the sentence better but I argue that it belongs to the article.ImTheIP (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's name this article!

I'd like to start a discussion on what a proper name for this article would be now that it seems like the conflict is over. Hamas has actually coined a quite fancy name for the conflict, but as of yet there is no English translation of it yet. It is of course doubtful that it will stick in Western media. ImTheIP (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

"Clashes" article title

This page is ostensibly about a botched covert operation and firefight, so not sure if "clashes" really sums up the material appropriately. Incursion, operation, etc. all seem more appropriate. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)